I know a lot of people hate the impact fantasy baseball has had on the sport. If you're one of them, you'll enjoy Christina Kahrl's diatribe on the topic. Here's a taste:

I recognize that fantasy baseball is immensely popular. I recognize that it's been a very good thing-for baseball as an industry, for fans who want to entertain themselves, for Baseball Prospectus. It seems very clear-fantasy baseball is a good thing. But it also isn't what attracts me to the game-I love watching the game, I love the tactics, I'm fascinated by team construction and player usage patterns, and how real teams try to really win or really get better. For me, there's something fundamentally wrong when the order of concern isn't over a great young pitcher's future and what his possible injury means to him or to his team, but instead first flips to whether or not this injury affects something that, to me, is about as exciting as playing the futures market, and feeling the thrill of putting everything on soy.

You know when fantasy baseball is best? When your favorite MLB team is terrible. I was never more engaged with my (championship-winning) teams than when the Mets were stuck in the Art Howe era. As character-building as it may have been, it wasn't much fun watching those teams "compete." But now that the Mets are good, I don't need the added distraction while watching the game. And I'd much rather not be distracted by fantasy implications when the Mets are playing. So, while I think Karhl goes a little overboard in her criticism -- it's not like being a fan of a team and a fantasy owner are mutually exclusive, after all -- she makes a good point. Being a fan would be a much more pure, less complicated experience if fantasy leagues didn't exist.